The University of Maryland's mass deacidification policies are described in two associated webpages: the main Mass Deacidification Initiative webpage and the linked Mass Deacidification Photo Album. Maryland estimates that approximately 75% of the books in its library collections are acidic. Like many other universities, they use the Bookkeeper process to for their mass deacidification treatments, targeting between 3000 and 7000 books a year.
The Univeristy prioritizes deacidification treatment for books in disciplines considered important to UM's mission as well as books that "will be needed in the original format for the foreseeable future." In addition to following the general selection criteria that Roberta Pilette notes most institutions share (i.e. presence of acidity judged using a pH pen, presence of a sound text block, omission of books with already brittle paper or a high percentage of coated pages), the University of Maryland won't select books that are (and I quote):
- Unbound
- Duplicates - poor condition
- Pre-1850 imprints
- Rare materials
- Larger than 11 1/2 X 9 X 2 1/2 inches.
Throughout the deacidification process, the University of Marlyland's policies attempt to minimize any disruption to students and researchers. For this reason, they take only a few books from any single part of the collections at a time. They also check those books out, so that a due date appears in the online catalog. The books are then treated off-site and returned to the library within 7-9 days. The library also offers its patrons rush ILL orders for any books out due to treatment.
One detail that I was rather surprised (and disappointed) to learn was that the vendor puts a white dot on the spine of the book to indicate that it has been treated. Though I understand that this helps library assistants identify at a glance which books have already been treated, it seems illogical to mark the books when the UM webpage emphasizes that "the treatment causes no change in the appearance of the book, its binding or any of the library's labels and stamps."
75% of books belonging to which period? I remember that those books had a residue that was obvious to the touch as I can recall.
ReplyDeleteThe University of Maryland's statement isn't perfectly clear on this. The sentence revealing this information reads in its entirety, "Surveys reveal that 75% of the books in our library collections have acidic paper, and of those, approximately 16% have paper which is already brittle and therefore beyond repair." Earlier in the same paragraph, the author noted that "[M]any books published between 1830 and 1980 have acidic paper," but it isn't clear whether the 75% applies simply to books from that period or, as the lack of qualifications in the phrase "in our library collections" would seem to indicate, in the total population of the library collections. 75% did seem incredibly high to me, but perhaps it is possible.
ReplyDeleteI was impressed at how forthright UM was in telling us exactly what has been treated, how long it will be gone, and how to find a replacement via ILL. It seems like their consideration of even possible use is different from the repositories Pilette profiles, where use is barely considered. I also thought it was interesting how a portion of UM's collections selected for deacidification deal with Islam, Arabic, and terrorism. The institution I studied (Pitt) selected fine arts materials to treat. Based on subject matter alone, I wonder which institution's materials are more attractive for federal money for treatment...
ReplyDelete